• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Illustrating your answer with case law, assess the extent to which the exercise of the Royal Prerogative is controlled by the courts. Should the exercise of the royal prerogative be subject to more stringent control by parliament or the courts?

Extracts from this document...


Illustrating your answer with case law, assess the extent to which the exercise of the Royal Prerogative is controlled by the courts. Should the exercise of the royal prerogative be subject to more stringent control by parliament or the courts? In this essay I will be examining how far the Royal Prerogative is controlled by the courts after it has been exercised by the executive. I will then discuss whether the prerogative should be controlled by the courts or parliament, and how strict this should be. The royal prerogatives are powers and privileges recognized in common law as belonging to the Crown sometimes referred to as residuary discretionary powers. However, most prerogative acts are performed by the government of the day in the name of the crown. As by prerogative the Crown is immune from prosecution Certain prerogatives are only performed by the crown on the prime minister's advice, such as the dissolution of parliament. Some prerogatives such as powers to appoint and award honours are performed by the Crown, who will also conduct the relevant ceremonies, but decisions as to who will be honoured are made on the advice given by the government. ...read more.


The Police Act 1964 gave the police powers but, it did not exclude the home secretary using his prerogative powers, hence allowing them to uphold the supremacy of parliament. In R v Secretary of state for the Home department ex parte Fire brigades Union and others,5 the question arose; was the home secretary legally free to leave provisions unrepealed and exercise prerogative powers to establish a scheme radically different from those provisions? The court held that he could, but not too an extent that was so radical from what parliament had original approved of. Here the courts once again upheld statute over the prerogative. In R v Foreign secretary ex parte Everett 19896, the court held that the granting and withholding of passports was subject to review by courts. However, though courts are now generally allowed to review cases where prerogative powers are used, some exceptions do exist. In De Freitas v Benny7 it was held that the case was not susceptible for judicial review as courts have no control over prerogative of mercy. However, in the case of Bentley (1993)8, the court held that indeed the prerogative of mercy was a matter of policy, but there was a failure to recognise that the prerogative was capable of being exercised in the facts of the circumstances, and this failure was reviewable by the courts. ...read more.


It could be argued that parliament alone should have control of the prerogative as it exercises it and is the elected body. But, to have those who exercise it and then scrutinise it in such proximity may not give leeway to a legitimate analysis. Though question time, debates and select committees may allow for scrutiny, the government may argue national security overrides the discussion if it is a 'confidential' matter or even that it is in the public interest. Control of the prerogative by an independent institution from that who exercises the prerogative is crucial. Courts will take into consideration the issue of sovereignty of parliament by upholding statutes. Its perspective on the separation of powers will ensure that public policy matters are dealt with the government alone. However, the government will control the inherent executive powers, such as declarations of war and peace, and such powers may not be justiciable. Having said that, I believe that stringent control of the prerogative power be the equal responsibility of our constitution. As the UK has an unwritten constitution, the prerogative is as a result open to extensive interpretation. I believe certain prerogatives be sent to the reviewing institution-the judiciary. After all, the judiciary was appointed for the administration of justice. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our University Degree Public Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Here's what a teacher thought of this essay

5 star(s)

A good essay; the student does as asked.

The student may have wished to have developed Dicey's theory throughout, to create a "theme" to the essay.

Marked by teacher Edward Smith 17/09/2013

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related University Degree Public Law essays

  1. Marked by a teacher

    Discuss the relevance of the concept of the rule of law to current constitutional ...

    4 star(s)

    Showing that actions cannot be justified only because officials have made them, they have to comply with the law. Another relevant case to Dicey's first element of the rule of law is T v UK9. "It means equality before the law, or the equal subjection of all classes to the

  2. Marked by a teacher

    Parliamentary sovereignty. " Step, by step, gradually but surely, the English principle of the ...

    4 star(s)

    Evidence of this is present in the courts decision in the case of R v Secretary of state for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd5 where the The European Unions's (EU) Common Fisheries Policy set aside the Merchant Shipping Act 19886 .

  1. Marked by a teacher

    To what extent (if at all) is it true to say that the United ...

    3 star(s)

    clearly does not apply in the UK system since the executive is formed from the legislature and the most senior members of the judiciary sit in the Lords.

  2. Compare and contrast written and unwritten constitutions. Which type of constitution do you favour?

    In contrast to the USA's written constitution the UK does not have judicial review of primary legislation, so any bills passed through parliament by the government are not previewed and cannot be declared unconstitutional before hand as they are in America.

  1. We are presented with a question finding its roots in the Judicial Review area ...

    The court of Appeal in this case went as far as saying that proportionality should banish the Wednesbury approach, but left it up to the House of Lords to do so. Lord Justice Dyson stated "we have difficulty in seeing what justification there now is for retaining the Wednesbury test,

  2. 'The House of Lords should be abolished. The UK only needs one chamber of ...

    imminent, the recent challenge of the House of Lords Act 1999 by Lord Mereworth5 would suggest that this process is not going to be expedient. The motion that a House with such a weak claim to democratic legitimacy should be abolished is a strong one.

  1. "The Royal Prerogative remains a significant source of constitutional law which is largely immune ...

    the Crown; secondly, that the powers derive from common law; thirdly, that the powers are residual; fourthly, that the majority of the powers are exercised by the executive government in the name of the Crown; and finally, that no Act of Parliament is necessary to confer authority on the exercise of such powers.

  2. Constitutional Conventions of the UK

    A legal rule is identifiable and will normally be found in an Act of Parliament or judicial decision. Conventions on the other hand are less certain on their origins. A legal rule will normally have a settled meaning as it may have been subject to statutory interpretation earlier.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work